 |
| © nofrackingway.us |
A metaphor that is useful for
describing intervention strategies is the distinction between
upstream and downstream approaches, or the difference between prevention and remediation. Upstream strategies
seek to prevent the problem; downstream approaches occur after the
problem has occurred and try to minimize the harm that is done. Of
course, some strategies are a combination of the two; there is a
continuum between pure upstream and downstream approaches.
Consider the problem of waste. The
downstream approach is discarding the waste—that is, we wait
until it accumulates to the point of inconvenience and then either
displace it (throw it “away,” as in a landfill), or attempt to
dilute it by allowing it to escape into the public air, land and
water. Of course, there is no such place as “away,” and dilution
fails when the concentration of waste becomes too high (or when the
waste is discharged a mile upstream from the water supply intake valve).
Upstream (prevention) Downstream
(remediation)
➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔
➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔
➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔
Source
reduction Reuse Recycling Discarding
Recycling and reuse
are more upstream approaches, with reuse being farther
upstream than recycling. The difference can be illustrated with
glass bottles. The old bottles can be ground up and used to
manufacture new bottles (recycling), or the old bottles can be
sanitized and reused.
The upstream solution to waste is
source reduction: Produce less waste in the first place.
Sometimes, this involves curtailing manufacture of the product. In
other cases, the product can be produced more efficiently, so as to
reduce unnecessary waste. Increased efficiency is usually an easier
sell, since curtailment typically involves more sacrifice. For
example, it's probably easier to convince people to insulate their
homes than to set back their thermostats.
The most significant example of the
need for source reduction is in energy production. Consider all the
harm that is done to human health and safety by our reliance on
fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas. We could meet all our energy needs much more cheaply with renewables. While solar and
wind power generate some pollution, it is miniscule by comparison to
fossil fuels. Yet we don't do it, even though it is now obvious that
human survival depends on it.
From the perspective human
well-being—the greatest good for the greatest number—upstream
solutions are almost always more desirable than downstream solutions.
They are typically cheaper and involve less inconvenience, or in the
case of health problems, suffering. It would have been cheaper and
better to slightly inconvenience Freedom Industries by requiring them
to keep their containers in good repair, rather than forcing 300,000
people to do without water for several days. The cleanup cost will
probably ultimately be borne by the taxpayers, since our laws are
written so that Freedom Industries can easily write off its costs or
declare bankruptcy.
The upstream-downstream model can be
applied to any social or environmental problem. For example, it
would be cheaper and more humane if we could prevent depression, but
at the present time, depression is treated by giving people drugs
that act primarily to mask its symptoms.
Why don't we rely on upstream solutions
more often? In many cases, upstream solutions are
less transparent. They are farther in space and time from the
problem. People smoked tobacco for centuries before it was
conclusively demonstrated that smoking causes lung cancer. Yet,
compared to other cancers, this is a relatively obvious relationship.
Finding upstream solutions to mental health problems may be even
more challenging than preventing physical illness. Because upstream
solutions are less obvious, it's more difficult to convince the
public that they should be implemented. It's also harder to find
financial support for the research needed to investigate upstream
solutions.
But knowledge of how to prevent harm
and evidence of its effectiveness was not the problem in West
Virginia. The name of the polluting corporation turned out to be
ironically appropriate, since so many corporations identify “freedom”
with the absence of government regulation and oversight. Going
without water for a week doesn't engage metaphors about freedom,
although it should. It's hard to think of many things that reduce
your freedom more than having to queue up for water for drinking and
bathing, having to close local businesses, coming down with a
pollution-related illness, etc.
While upstream solutions provide the
greatest public good, not all people benefit equally from their
adoption, and some are harmed by them. One person's freedom may
conflict with another's. Since those that benefit from prevention
are usually average citizens and those that are harmed are “corporate
persons” and their wealthy owners, the issue is unequal political
power. MCHM is one of tens of thousands of industral chemicals never
tested for its risk to human health. But the real problem is that regulatory agencies are routinely captured by the industries they are
supposed to be regulating. The Freedom Industries storage plant had not been inspected since 1991. In West Virginia, politicians'
reliance on coal money has produced an environment in which they not
only fail to act to reduce obvious health and safety hazards, but
openly defy the Environmental Protection Agency. Pennsylvania
residents might want to think about the potential for air and water
quality disasters here, given our leadership's subservience to the
natural gas industry.
Inequality of power is combined with a
political system that is little more than legalized bribery, provided
that the political contribution is sufficiently upstream from the
decision to avoid being obvious. And in this country, due to the
feedback loop running from inequality to political power to even
greater inequality, the problem is increasing exponentially.
You may also be interested in reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.